I had heard of Sergent couplers previously, here on the Model Railroader Forums. I found Pelle Soeborg's article on them in the current (October issue) of Model Railroader interesting and informative.
The couplers are smaller and more prototypical; however, the comment made on the first page about the Kadee #58's having unprototypical springs, doesn't make sense, as in use, the springs are not visible. The Sergents do have an excellent method of providing uncoupling; but, you have to get by the unprototypical stick with a magnet on it reaching into the scene to uncouple (similar to the sis-kabob sticks I now use).
To those of you who want to take everything as close to the real thing, as possible, the Sergent Coupler is another opportunity for you to do so.
I have 140 plus cars with the old Kadee #5s on them, including locomotives with the various other Kadee types needed, this is an investment of close to $175.00 in couplers, re-investing in another manufacturers couplers this late in the game, isn't going to happen for me!
However, those starting out certainly do have an opportunity to take capturing prototypical sizes for everything, one step closer, if that's important to you.
NP 2626 "Northern Pacific, really terrific"
Northern Pacific Railway Historical Association: http://www.nprha.org/
I chose to go with the smaller Kadee 58/158s pretty much from the get-go. Glad I did it, too. They look great and can still couple to other make/size couplers, if need be. (And I've had no inadvertent uncoupling problems.) I buy the 58s in bulk (20 pr/pack) so that saves quite a bit over time.
While the Sergeant couplers do look nice, the difference between them and the Kadee 58s isn't large enough for me to even bother changing over. If I were going to have a locomotive or piece of rolling stock being judge for a competition, that would be a different story.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
I must agree that they are quite decent looking, but as mentioned, after having 100s of pieces already equipt w/ Kadees this won't be happening either. The other issue is there is no centering spring similar to the prototype (this is the "hidden" spring you mention). Switching may be more like the real thing, but I don't feel like centering couplers each and every time to couple for operations. I always wondered about that "little" ball bearing that drops to lock as to a potential for future issues. I use a skewer to uncouple Kadees, so using a "stick/ magnet" isn't an issue. Some w/ curved yards may like the ability of the Sargent's to couple on turns, however if you have to fiddle w/ the centering, you can accomplish the same using Kadees (within reason of coarse)
I guess it's just another option, if starting out, not sure were I'd be on this one.
Modeling B&O- Chessie Bob K. www.ssmrc.org
There has been considerable interest in the narrowgauge community in the Sergents.This is due wanting to use them to eliminate the "bounce" that affects equipment using Kadee 714 couplers.
The problem is the draft gear, which I understand is bulkier than the existing provisions for 714 couplers. There are ways to deal with this, but they're more labor intensive than a simple coupler swap and can be a real challenge to try to apply to already built-up cars. If Sergent came put with a coupler with a shank sized so that it's a drop-in to replace 714s, I'd be seriously considering conversion.
Your layout also needs to provide reachable access at all points where coupling and uncoupling will take place. Since the Sergents don't self-center, you need to be able to line up the couplers by hand, just like the prototype does at times, when coupling. And you need to be able to reach in with your hand uncoupler.
NP2626,
I haven't priced them lately, but when I did I recall Sergents being around the same price as the new Kadee whisker couplers. I suspect that the cost of converting 140 cars will be more than $175? Now that I look at Sergent's pricing, I see that the built couplers are more expensive, but that build-your-own run just a bit over $2/car (i.e. $7 for 3 pairs). In my mind, the cost is not unreasonable, it's the prospect of all the work to do the conversions in HOn3 for my 200+ car fleet. If I was just starting out in HOn3, however, I'd give serious consideration to the Sergents.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
I tried out a couple pairs of Sergents couplers a few years ago. While they look good and operate very well I can't see any advantage for me to switch to them. I'd have to change out all the couplers on the locos and rolling stock unless I used transition cars that have a Sergents on one end and a Kadee on the other end. Also Sergents aren't compatible with anything but Sergents. You can couple a modified Kadee scale coupler to a Sergents coupler but it means picking up the end of the Kadee equipped car then pushing the Kadee down into the Sergents knuckle. Uncoupling the two means you have to pick the car up again. I sometimes run some of my locos and rolling stock on friends layouts and I wnat to keep my stuff compatible with theirs, so I have no desire or need to change to the Sergents couplers.
Dr. Frankendiesel aka Scott Running BearSpace Mouse for president!15 year veteran fire fighterCollector of Apple //e'sRunning Bear EnterprisesHistory Channel Club life member.beatus homo qui invenit sapientiam
NP2626 however, the comment made on the first page about the Kadee #58's having unprototypical springs, doesn't make sense, as in use, the springs are not visible.
ROAR...
LION thought the same thing, but it is not the centering springs that were offending the author, but the little bronze spring on the side that closes the coupler face. (You know the one, there must be hundreds of them in your carpet!)
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
It also appeared to me that there would potentially be a lot of shimming of the existing coupler boxes required to get the shank of the Sergent coupler to fit.
BroadwayLion NP2626 however, the comment made on the first page about the Kadee #58's having unprototypical springs, doesn't make sense, as in use, the springs are not visible. ROAR... LION thought the same thing, but it is not the centering springs that were offending the author, but the little bronze spring on the side that closes the coupler face. (You know the one, there must be hundreds of them in your carpet!) ROAR
I know, all mine have gone to that "Neverland" from the workbench. Imagine if you find that place, just think of all the detail parts, screws and pieces to use for years.
I've changed a fleet of some 20 MDC old time reefers to Sergent Engineering couplers and left a Kadee on one end of two, so I can run them with other rolling stock on my home layout, and they have performed very well..
I don't take these reefers to the club, however, because no one else uses Sergent couplers, and my rolling stock cannot be intermixed with other users.
An alternative to the Sergent is the Accumate Proto:HO coupler.
Having it's own draft gear box the Proto:HO doesn't have the problems of it's larger brother of splitting apart under load. Since to get the benefits of appearance with the Sergents the Accumate draft gear box should be used. The stock HO KD coupler box looks awful with the Sergent, that is the stock on the right. Compared to a KD clone:
The Accumate Proto:HO's also couple and uncouple better than the KD's and will couple with KDs.
Harold
O.K., maybe that makes some sense. I've always judged appearance by the train being in motion and maybe it's old age (eye sight diminishing) ; but, I don't see them given my criteria.
Like Mike, I am in HOn3, too and have considered the new couplers. Unlike Mike, I do not have a lot of assembled rolling stock and the conversion would not be a burden. It is back to the question of HOn3 adapability issues rather than one of cost, for me.
The old reliable kadee 714 for HOn3 has served for years, but the bounce issue is terrible and some solutions exist. I am surprised Kadee let this situation go on for so long without a redesign effort.
Richard
If I can't fix it, I can fix it so it can't be fixed
If you are like me, you have a lot more non prototypical areas of your layout to address before you change your small head KD2 for Sergents. Really have to consider the "Bang for the Buck" factor.
Not to wander too far from the topic, one tactic I've taken when assembling the 714 coupler is to double the spring up. They interlace just fine, as anyone who's spent time untangling them will testify. This effectively doubles the force it takes to "bounce" the coupler, helping to limit it. I've been doing this with new builds for some time. However, the large number of Blackstone cars likely are all single-sprung from the factory and a campaign to improve them and any earlier cars without two springs per coupler would probably significantly improve train-handling.
Why this is not too far from the topic of the Sergents is that those in HOn3 are in two camps. Those who are switching to the Sergent OR those who for reasons of large fleet, apathy about the "bounce," or sheer laziness would like to have Sergents or a coupler that acted more like them than the 714 but won't be doing it for those reasons.
One thing to slightly modify the earlier comment about Sergents not coupling with Kadees. Some in HOn3 have reported that the Sergent can be coupled to the 714. Others have reported not. Others says sorta. I don't know what the truth is, but even my 200+ pcs of rolling stock would not take all that long to convert, if I set my mind to it -- at least the easy ones. It's all the "problem childs" that will take the most time. Then there are the very narrowframed items like drop-bottom gons. So lots to consider before taking the plunge.
Personally, I'm hoping rumors that Kadee is working on an improved 714-equivalent coupler finally come true, especially so if it worked with the 714. Even if it didn't, it would be a great competitor to the Sergent,
O.K., I'll bite, what is the 714 "Bounce"? Please describe what is happening during "the bounce".
With trucks that intermittently drag or don't roll freely 100% but roll-drag-roll-drag and each time the wheels break loose, the coupler springs store the momentum and release it, creating a rebounding bounce to the consist line, which in turn gets transmitted to the next coupler spring and so on and so on.
A little more explanation to add to Jeffrey's.
The 714 is an old design Kadee used prior to the good ol' #5. It was originally considered a standard gauge coupler and some of those who do Turn of the Century (the 20th, that is) use them to model 3/4 AAR size couplers. Now they're used almost exclusively for narrowgauge and most NG kits and RTR comes set up to accept the 714 format coupler's draft gear. That's why my desire for proper draft gear for the Sergent to work within the 714 format. I'm certain if Kadee does come out with a next gen 714-replacment, it will fit the existing 714 draft gear location, even if it ends up being different mechanically.
The springs in it are a little different, rather more like many N scale couplers use. The spring sits in a cavity former by the coupler halves and bears against the center post. Thus the spring also acts as part of the draft gear. Which is neat the first time you see it, but is rather unprototypical and irritating after the 1,000th time. The whole consist gets to bobbing like ducks on a string. Adding the second spring tames it some. So does have very smooth running trucks, as the differing resistance to rolling aggravates whatever bobbing gets the "bounce" started.
The first to act to give a turn-key solution to this dilemma will get the appreciation -- and the funds -- from many HOn3 operators, a small, but dedicated and growing market segment.
A couple things to consider:
1. The Concertina effect, or "bounce-back". It is greatest when there is a lot of play between mated couplers, and the 711/714's do have a lot of play. The double-spring trick sounds like a great idea because it would minimize buff & draft movement, and probably reduce the Concertina effect.
2. Appearance at trackside: When two cars are coupled, is the distance between carbodies prototypical? Among those discussed here, Kadee 5's are the worst (X2F's may be even worse than that!) Much too much space. Mated Kadee 58's are much better, but not ideal.. That's what I've settled on for my equipment, which is standard gauge. Yes, it's a compromise. I know of 714's (i.e., standard gauge "Old Time" 711's) being used on transition-era freight cars with very good results. The couplers are probably undersized, which means they don't call attention to themselves, and car spacing is approx. 4 scale feet, which is very close to prototype. The couplers are much more durable than many people think. I've seen successful operation of standard gauge trains of 20 cars and more with 714's.
Just thought I'd throw that out for discussion.
I understand the "714 bounce" sorta, now. Although if I take Jeffrey Wemberly's explanation as the cause, it makes me wonder why a lack of free rolling of the trucks is being blamed on the 714 coupler? Mike went on to further explain, so I'm good.
As far as the Sergent Engineering coupler being the next evolutionary step-up in coupler design, I would say this remains to be seen. If so, Who-ray, if not, Who-cares.
ACY A couple things to consider: 1. ... 2. Appearance at trackside: When two cars are coupled, is the distance between carbodies prototypical? Among those discussed here, Kadee 5's are the worst (X2F's may be even worse than that!) Much too much space. Mated Kadee 58's are much better, but not ideal.. That's what I've settled on for my equipment, which is standard gauge. Yes, it's a compromise. I know of 714's (i.e., standard gauge "Old Time" 711's) being used on transition-era freight cars with very good results. The couplers are probably undersized, which means they don't call attention to themselves, and car spacing is approx. 4 scale feet, which is very close to prototype. The couplers are much more durable than many people think. I've seen successful operation of standard gauge trains of 20 cars and more with 714's. Just thought I'd throw that out for discussion.
1. ...
I just measured the coupled distance between car bodies of several of my Kadee #5s equipped freight cars, which is scale 4 feet!
NP2626:
I guess this is a reminder for me to recheck my facts before jumping to contusions. You're right. Kadee 5's couple about 4 scale feet apart. But 711/714's couple at about 1/3 to 1/2 that distance & the appearance of a train is much better.
Some time I want to get out and measure the actual distance between two coupled cars of the transition era and see what's prototypically correct. I still think 4 feet is too much, even though I accept this compromise on my own equipment. As I said, I use 58's.
My very limited experience with Sargents was a long time ago. I do remember that they coupled fairly closely, looked terrific, and operated well.
As for centering the couplers in order to couple up, it's done with a hard kick with a heavy boot on the prototype. Of course, the curves are generally much gentler on the 1:1 railroads.
ACY
NP 2626:
Forgot to add one thing: Kadee 711/714's will couple with 5's and 58's with no problem.
davidmbedardX2F is to Kadee #5s as Kadee #158s is to Sergents. It's an elvolution people. If you don't want to buy in, that's fine. I think that anyone who is starting a serious layout should atleast consider them. Eventually the local standard groups will list Sergents as "required". It'll take time, but like everything else that has evolved in this hobby, so shall the couplers. One day there will be something superior to the Sergents......wash, rinse, repeat. David B
I agree..I thought about equipping 30-40 cars for use on my ISL instead of the equpped #5 and 148s.
The jury is still out.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
BRAKIE davidmbedardX2F is to Kadee #5s as Kadee #158s is to Sergents. It's an elvolution people. If you don't want to buy in, that's fine. I think that anyone who is starting a serious layout should atleast consider them. Eventually the local standard groups will list Sergents as "required". It'll take time, but like everything else that has evolved in this hobby, so shall the couplers. One day there will be something superior to the Sergents......wash, rinse, repeat. David B I agree..I thought about equipping 30-40 cars for use on my ISL instead of the equpped #5 and 148s. The jury is still out.
Larry, as a former 1 to 1 scale railroader, do you know what the distance between the bodies of freight cars is?
ACY NP 2626: Forgot to add one thing: Kadee 711/714's will couple with 5's and 58's with no problem.
Yes, this is important if you operate dual-gauge. Because of the size of the draft gear, the only way to get two couplers in close proximity, standard and narrowgauge, in HO is to use a 714 for the centered SG coupler and a 1015 (IIRC) N scale coupler for the offset NG coupler. If you try to use a full-size Kadee and a 714 instead, you can't get them to sit in the correct place in relations to each other to handle both SG and NG cars.
Here's a pic of the dual-coupler install I did on a Bachmann 44-tonner. I extended the deck a foot or so in order to provide clearance at the back of the draft gear to the truck. It requires accurate work to get them placed right, but worth it once it's done.
This is another area where the wide draft gear of the Sergent will be an issue for narrowgaugers.
Except for the recent Sergent discussion, couplers, in general, are just a non-issue for the modern model rail, especially for the beginner. All models that are R-T-R and in all kits that include couplers, the tendancy to supply kadees or kadee work alikes is the norm now. Remember when all R-T-R and all kits came with the rather clumsy, but workable NMRA horn couplers! What a waste of good delrin plastic. They always got tossed by all but the most novice among us.
If I was in standard gauge HO, as I was for 35 years, I would keep my old #5's. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The Sergents are most attractive to hyper scale buffs and HOn3 folks.
In my book, there are certain tradeoffs that must be made because we're building working models. If I was building some display model museum piece thing, then scale couplers would be required. But Kadee does something that fits one of my rules: allows for hands off operating. I abhor reaching "into the scene" to manipulate the model in any way. No breaking the fourth wall! Until such time that tiny men controlled wirelessly can be moved about the layout to center couplers and pull cut levers, magnets and springs will have to work.
Plus, like someone else said, there's enough other things to worry about first if you're being ultra-prototypical. For one, SD40-2s don't draw electrical power from the two rails...
NittanyLion,
Good point. Operation is the prime directive for couplers. If that's reliable, it's a good coupler. If it's not, doesn't matter how good it looks.
Richard,
That's also where I'd be cautious about including all Kadee-clones. Some are good enough, but many are not. Long trains and heavy grades are a sure route to failing them chintzier ones. I do agree that it's great that at least a semi-working coupler is on everything these days. Man, I hated those horn-hooks. Not even its Mama liked its face.
NP2626Larry, as a former 1 to 1 scale railroader, do you know what the distance between the bodies of freight cars is?
--------------------------------------
No sir never gave it much thought to be honest..I was more concern with a sudden run in of slack.
On the Chessie a lot of cars had extended cushion coupler boxes or longer couplers which made it a lot safer to be in between.
BRAKIE NP2626Larry, as a former 1 to 1 scale railroader, do you know what the distance between the bodies of freight cars is? -------------------------------------- No sir never gave it much thought to be honest..I was more concern with a sudden run in of slack. On the Chessie a lot of cars had extended cushion coupler boxes or longer couplers which made it a lot safer to be in between.
Larry,
I believe the Chessie did that, so those cars could negotiate,,18'' to 24'' Radius curves,that a lot of layouts don't have the space for broader curves...so close coupling,is out of the equation..
Just My Two Cents..
Cheers,
Frank